Excess Area and Depth to Detachment! Jean-Luc Epard? and Richard H. Groshong, Jr.3 ABSTRACT A plot of the excess area in cross section vs. the depth to a reference level for several stratigraphic horizons in a compressional fold produces a curve that gives the depth to detachment. The curve is a straight line for detachment folds. The slope of the \¢ is the displacement on the lower detachment and the depth intercept (where excess area = zero) is the depth to detachment. For a fault-bend fold, the result is a line that abruptly changes slope at the position corresponding to the upper detachment. The difference in slope between the two parts of the line is the displacement on the upper detachment. Added layer-parallel shear produces a curve on the graph. Tested on detachment folds from the Jura Mountains, the method accurately predicts the depth to detachment. The Tip Top field anticline in the Wyoming thrust belt is found to be interpretable as either a detachment anticline with a basal detach- ment close to the top of the basement or as a fault- bend fold with a basal detachment at the base of the Triassic. The excess-area diagram is useful for testing a cross section for balance, determining the struc- tural style (detachment anticline vs. fault-bend fold) and for examining alternatives in the construction of cross sections. INTRODUCTION The excess area of a fold is the area of material on a cross section that is uplifted by deformation to a position above its original regional datum level. The ‘Copyright 1989, The Amencan Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved "Manuscript received, December 6, 1991; reviges manuscript received, September 24,1952; fnal acceptance, January 12, 1903, “Deparment of Geology. Unversity of Alsbama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0596, Now at Insifut de Géologee et Paleontologie, Universite de Lausanne, BFSH2, CH-1038 Lausanne, Switzerland. SDepariment of Geology, Unversity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0538 ‘Jean-Luc Epard acknowedges Support of grants trom the Swiss National Science Foundation (Bourse ce Jeune Chereneur and project no. 2% '31062.91), the Fondation du 450* anniversaire ge (Unwersite oe Lausanne, and the Soceie Acagemaue Vaudorse, We appreciate the elptl comments [and discussions ‘rom Oave Wiltsehko, Bryan Cherry, and the Bulletin Teviewers. We ate especialy gratelul for the suggestions by Peter Verral tnd for permission to pubish hs interpretation ofp Top He magnitude of the excess area is a product of the dis- placement on the lower detachment and the depth to detachment (Figure 1). In the first paper on bal: anced cross sections, R. T. Chamberlin (1910) used a measurement of excess area to estimate the depth to detachment below central Appalachian anticlines. The depth to detachment is a critical parameter in the interpretation of the geometry and trapping potential of a fold and is required in order to pro- duce a balanced cross section. In recent years, the balancing and restoring of cross sections has become one of the primary techniques for testing whether a structural interpretation is reasonable Gally et al., 1966; Dahlstrom, 1969a; Woodward et al., 1989). Unfortunately, the depth-to-detachment calculation as originally formulated by Chamberlin (1910) is incorrect in certain examples, as first rec- ognized by Bucher (1933). Some of the causes of the problem were pointed out by Jones (1987), Geiser (29885), and Mitra and Namson (1989). In this paper, we present a new method for using the excess area in a fold to determine the depth to detachment. A graphical method is proposed which uses the excess areas of multiple horizons to over- come many of the problems that have arisen using the Chamberlin method on a single horizon. An excess-area graph is created on which the excess areas of several stratigraphic levels are plotted vs. depth to a constant reference horizon. The points are connected by a line, and the basal detachment of a structure is found as the depth for which the line Projects to zero excess area. The shape of the line and the goodness of fit of data to the line provide insight into the structural style and can be used in the design of a balanced cross section. CHAMBERLIN METHOD. Many styles of deformation are the result of dis placement above a detachment horizon (Figure 1) in which a shortening displacement, D, on the lower detachment produces deformation and uplift of an excess area, $, of units above the regional elevation, h. Assuming constant area, the excess area is S=Dh. @ 1291detachment Figure 1—Excess-area balance for displacement above a detachment horizon (after Dahlstrom, 1969b; Jones, 1987). $= excess area, D = displacement on lower detachment, h = depth to detachment, I, = assumed original bed length, L, = width of anticline, This is the relationship defined by Chamberlin (2910). Chamberlin also assumed that the bed length remained constant during deformation, so that r lo Li, 2 where Ly = curved-bed (original) length and L, = straight-line length (Figure 1). Most subsequent workers have accepted both equations. Solving equation 1 for h and replacing D by equation 2 gives the relationship used by Chamberlin (1910) to calcu- late the depth to detachment below the thin-skinned Appalachian fold and thrust belt: (dy-L), @) His predicted Appalachian detachment was V-shaped with a maximum depth of 32.7 mi (52.6 km). It is now well known that the lower detachment is approximately planar and at a depth of about 8 km. below the central Appalachians (Gwinn, 1964; Her- man, 1984; Geiser, 1988a; Mitra and Namson, 1989). On the other hand, Bucher (1933) determined that Chamberlin's method was appropriate for the exper- imental folds produced by Willis (1893) and for a Jura Mountains cross section by Heim (1919). It has since been recognized that there are major assump: tions built into the use of equations 1 and 2 which, if not satisfied, invalidate the interpretation. The following five assumptions typically are made in doing excessarea calculations. If these assumptions are not satisfied then, as will be indicated, a series of problems arise in the application of the method, 1) No material is assumed to enter or leave the ends of the cross section (i.e., no material transfer across the vertical pin lines shown in Figure 1). Dis: placement across a pin line will occur on the upper detachment of a faultbend fold (Jones, 1987; Geiser, 1988b; Mitra and Namson, 1989). Layer-parallel he shear may cross a pin line. This will cause an origi nally vertical pin line to become tilted or curved (Geiser, 1988b; Mitra and Namson, 1989). If this assumption is not valid, then equation 1 is not Valid (2) Bed length is assumed to be constant. Bed Jength may change, however, even though the are remains constant (Hossack, 1979; Geiser, 1988b; Mitra and Namson, 1989). This may be caused by strain at any scale from the microscopic to the macroscopic, and it invalidates equation 2 3) The area is assumed to be constant within the cross section (Hossack, 1979; Geiser, 1988b). If area is gained (as by extension fracturing) or lost (as by pressure solution) both equations 1 and 2 may be invalid. @) The original regional (McClay, 1992) elevation of a bed is assumed to be known. It is customary to place the regional at the base of the deepest s clines (Chamberlin, 1910; Dahlstrom, 1969b) ¢ Fig- ure 1), implicitly assuming that the depth of these synclines has not changed. The regional, however, may be shifted vertically by deformation from its cor. rect position. The sequence below the synclines may have thinned, as in a buckle fold (Wiltschko and Chapple, 1977), or thickened, as in the “squeeze- box” experiments of Willis (1893). If not taken into account, this problem invalidates equation 1 (S) The reference horizon and the lower detach: ment are assumed to be parallel to one another as shown in Figure 1. For a wedge-shaped sequence, this is not true (Williams, 1984), invalidating equation 1 ‘The new method proposed below uses the excess areas of multiple horizons to overcome many of the problems that arise using the conventional approach ‘with a single horizon, No bed-length measurement is required, and so equation 2 is eliminated along with most of its associated assumptions and problems. The method allows errors caused by bending of pin lines or transport across pin lines to be recognized and interpreted. As data from multiple horizons are used, the cross section is checked for internal con: sistency, and a bestfit answer is obtained. We begin by outlining the method, then apply it to models of balanced sections to illustrate the prop- erties of the excess-area graphs. We then demon: strate how the method works on well-documented oilfield-scale structures EXCESS-AREA GRAPHICAL TECHNIQUE The basic assumption is that equation 1 applies to the structure of interest. This equation contains one variable (S) that can be measured and two un- knowns (D and h). Two equations are required to obtain a unique solution. The solution can be found on a graph that represents the excess area, S, as a function of the depth to detachment, h (Figure 2B).Epard and Groshong 1293 7 Se 7 Si reference level true detachment detachment, “w < 2 < DQ 2 a 8 % 5 B) DEPTH Figure 2—Excess-area balance at two levels in an area- constant anticline. (A) Cross section. (B) Excess-area diagram: excess area plotted vs. depth to detachment. The slope of the line through the data points is the displacement on the lower detachment. On this graph, equation 1 is a straight line (Dahl- strom, 1990) that has two important properties: it passes through the origin, and the value of the slope of this line is D, the displacement, In a case where the displacement and the level of detachment are unknown, but the geological information is good ‘enough to measure the excess area with respect to a minimum of two levels, the following method is pro- posed (Figure 3). The measurements of the eleva tions, h, are made with respect to an arbitrary refer: ence level. The result of such measurements is a line of general equation, S=Dh+5,. @ If the line goes through the origin (e., $, = 0), as in Figure 2B, this means that the arbitrary level is the (A) s Sof —- For 4 o 2 < nD ah Sy ' 1 1 reference level true detachment ®) DEPTH Figure 3—Excess-area balance at two levels where depth t0 detachment is unknown. (A) Cross section: depth measurements are made from the reference evel. (B) Excess-area diagram. The slope of the line through the data points is the displacement on the lower detachment and the depth intercept of the line (excess area = 0) is the depth of the detachment below the reference horizon, true level of detachment. If the line does not go through the origin (Figure 3B), the arbitrary level is not the true detachment. The line intersects the h axis at $ = 0, giving the point that represents the true detachment. The distance between the arbitrary level and the true level of detachment can be deter- mined directly from the graph: it is the distance between the origin and the point of intersection of the line with the h axis (Figure 3B). If this line inter: sects the negative portion of the h axis, the true level of detachment is below the reference level. If the line intersects the positive portion of the h axis, the true detachment is above the reference level1294 Depth to Detachment to 7 5 5 s ae i 3 Bs , (B) Figure 4—Ideal fault- propagation fold. (A) Cross section of constant bed-length, constant bed-thickness model (Suppe, 1985). Horizons for which excess area were measured are numbered. (B) Excess-area diagram. The slight dispersion of the measured points relative to the best-fit line is the result of measurement and drawing inaccuracies. D = slope of line = displacement on lower detachment. In summary, the excess.area graph gives simulta: neously two Critical pieces of information: the dis- placement D, which is the slope of the line, and the depth to detachment represented by the intersec- tion of the line with the horizontal axis h. This graph integrates the geologic information at more than one stratigraphic level and therefore does not depend on the accuracy of the cross section at one single level. As indicated above, it does not depend on bed Jength measurements (equation 2). When data from more than two horizons are available, the line can be fit by least squares to obtain the best fit. APPLICATION TO THEORETICAL FOLD MODELS The most straightforward way to appreciate the properties and capabilities of excessarea graphs is to examine model curves for the fold styles of inter- est. Here, we illustrate the properties of a fault-prop: agation fold and a fault-bend fold. The effect of added layer-parallel simple shear is discussed in the Appendix A fault-bend fold (Suppe, 1983) is a specific model for the anticline formed above a fault that ramps upward from a lower detachment to an upper flat (Rich, 1934; McClay, 1992). An essential clement of the structure is displacement of the hanging wall onto an upper flat. A detachment fold Jamison, 1987) is a fold formed above the region in which the placement on a lower detachment dies out. We use the term detachment fold as a general geometric concept for any fold above a stratigraphically fixed detachment horizon, without any implication as to the specific structure of the fold or its mechanical origin. According to this use of the term, a fault- Propagation fold (Suppe, 1985) is a model for a spe- cific type of detachment fold. As will be seen, the excess area graph can be used to distinguish between fold styles with upper flat displacement (amp-flat or fault-bend-fold anticlines) and those without an upper flat (detachment anticlines), A detachment anticline, regardless of its internal structure, produces a straight line on an excess-ar graph. A fault-propagation fold (Figure 4A) has no displacement on an upper flat, and so is a represen: tative detachment anticline. In this type of structure, all the displacement is converted into excess area in the anticline, and the excess-area plot is a straight line that intersects the depth axis at the depth of the detachment. Because of small drawing and measure- ment errors, the points on the graph do not perfec ly fita straight line (Figure 4B). The least-squares best-fit straight line is S = 3.13h + 0.14, for which the correlation coefficient is 0.9997. In this equation, the slope of the line, 3.13, is the displacement in centimeters of the right pin line. The detachment level is found from the equation of the line as the value of h at S = 0, which in this case is -0.045 cm. On the drawing itself, the displacement is 3.10 cm and the detachment is at 0.00 cm. Measurement and drafting errors can thus be expected to result in minor variability at the third order of magnitude. In fault-bend folds, one part of the area involved in area balancing is not expressed as an excess area above regional, but is translated horizontally on an upper flat (Geiser, 1988b ; Mitra and Namson, 1989). With respect to excess.arca balancing, there is a dif- ference between the stratigraphic levels below the upper flat and the stratigraphic levels above the upper flat. For levels below the upper flat, no materi- al is translated horizontally out of the section. All the area involved is expressed as excess area (S) in Fig ure 5A). Therefore equation 1 is valid for h < hy, where hy is the elevation of the upper flat with re spect to the lower detachment (height of the ramp). For levels above the upper flat, the area balance canhel = by (A) - 4 < my dbhut 8 z a my He hy h L upper detachment L tower detachment DEPTH ®) Figure 5—Area balance of a fault-bend fold. (A) Excess areas (after Mitra and Namson, 1989). (B) Excess-area diagram. Depth measurements are with respect to the lower detachment. The excess areas above and below the upper flat are represented by different line segments which intersect at the stratigraphic level of the upper flat. D = displacement on the lower it, d= displacement on the upper flat, hy = be written as (Figure 5A), Dhy= 52+ AS, O} where AS, is the area translated out of the section. AS; can also be written as, a = (hy - hyd, CO} Epard and Groshong 1295 s 3 2 1 Sem “ wit EXCESS AREA (em?) 2 hy 4 ) DEPTH (em) Figure 6—Ideal fault-bend fold. (A) Cross section of constant bed-length, constant bed-thickness model (Suppe, 1983). Horizons for which excess area was measured are numbered. (B) Excess-area diagram. The slight dispersion of measured points relative to the bestfit lines is the result of measurement and drawing inaccuracies. D = displacement on lower detachment = length of ramp plus width of fold crest directly on the upper flat, d= displacement on upper flat = distance along the upper flat from the top of the ramp to the frontal axial surface, hy = elevation of the upper flat above the reference level. where h, is the height of the ramp and d is the placement on the upper flat. Solving equation 5 for S; and replacing AS, by equation 6, S)=@- Dhy + dhy, o ‘This is the equation of a line of slope (D - d) that is valid for h > hy, The excess areas of a fault-bend fold are repre- sented by two line segments (Figure 5B). The first segment is valid for h < h,, and corresponds to equa: tion 1. The second segment is valid for h > hy and corresponds to equation 7.1296 Depth to Detachment Chaluet Graitery Tunnel Trace Meeres- ‘Niveau Figure 7—The Graitery and Grench (2916). No vertical exaggeration, Excess area data collected from above an upper flat falls on a line (Figure 5B) that would project to a very deep lower detachment. Ignoring the presence of an upper flat and taking into consideration only the measurements made in the upper levels (above the upper flat) would lead to a significant overesti mation of the depth to the lower detachment. If the depth to the lower detachment is known from the stratigraphy or can be inferred from the excess-area curve for the lower part of the structure, then both the break in slope of the excess area curve and the too-deep detachment inferred for the upper part of the structure indicate the presence of displacement ‘on an upper detachment, An ideal fault-bend fold (Figure GA) gives the pre- dicted segmented line on an excess area graph (Fig: ure 6B). In the example, the lower line segment has the equation, $ = 5.52h - 0.30. with a correlation coefficient of 0.9999. The upper line segment has the equation, $= 1.64h + 8.45, with a correlation coefficient of 1.0 (perfect because there are only two data points). The slope of the lower line, 5.52 om, is the displacement on the lower detachment The slope of the upper line is D - d= 1.64 cm Therefore, the displacement on the upper detach: ment is 5.52 cm ~ 1.64 cm = 3.88 cm. The computed depth of the lower detachment is 0.05 em above the reference level. The location of the upper flat is found by setting the two equations equal and solving for h, giving the clevation of the upper flat as 2.26 cm above the reference level. All these values are within 1 mm of the values that were measured on the cross section itself, the slight differences being due to measurement and drafting errors. Grenchenberg ‘Siidporta ces Gronchenbergtunnels Motaese Portiand - Kimmeridge ‘Sequan Zrgovien -Ob. Dogger bhauprrogensteln Untorer Dogger ‘Opalinuston Las Kevper Musehetkalk Anhyditgr ‘Buntsandstin Grundgebirgssocke! Salzhorizont APPLICATION TO NATURAL EXAMPLES The following examples were chosen to demon strate the validity of the method because there is good control on their geometry. Units in each exam: ple are inferred to return to their regional reference horizons on both sides of the anticline. Because cle: vations from multiple horizons are available, the cross sections can be tested for internal consistency Graitery and Grenchenberg Anticlines The Graitery and Grenchenberg anticlines are in the Jura Mountains of Switzerland. The classic cross section of Buxtorf (1916) is examined here (Figure 7). The cross section is controlled by the surface geology, the geology in the Grenchenberg tunnel, and by Buxtorf's interpretation that the lower detachment is planar and at the base of the salt hori- zon, the depth to which is controlled stratigraphical ly in the synclines and is 87 m above the basement. The reference horizon for our measurements is the top basement. There are minor thickness variations, so the values used here are averaged from the syn- clines on each side of the structure. The Graitery anticline data (Table 1) are well fit by a straight line (Figure 8) having the equation, S = 1.58h - 0.15, with a correlation coefficient of 0.991 The slope of the line indicates a displacement on the lower detachment of 1.58 km. The line cuts the h axis (S = 0) at h = 0.097, representing the depth of the detachment. This depth is in excellent agree- ment with the depth of 0.087 km in the cross seEpard and Groshong, 1297 Table 1. Graitery Anticline. ‘Table 2. Grenchenberg Anticline. h s h s Level &m) km’ Level &m) km?) Top of Argovien 1.194 1772 ‘Top of Hauptrogenstein 0.897 3.236 Top of Hauptrogenstein 0.966 Top Unterer Dogger 0.728 2727 Top Unterer Dogger 0.795 1124 Top of Opalinuston 0.617 2197 Top of Opalinuston 0.699 0.891 Top of Lias 0.484 1.701 Top of Lias 0.349 0.690 ‘Top of Muschelkalk 0.288 10 Top of Muschetkatk 0.329 0.412 - —= <= tion, The Grenchenberg anticline data (Table 2) are also well fit by a straight line (Figure 8B). The equa- tion of the line is S = 3.56h + 0.03, with a correlation coefficient of 0.987. The displacement is 3.56 km. This line intersects the h axis at h = -0.008 km, which is 8 m below the inferred top basement and about 100 m below the position of the detachment as interpreted by Buxtorf. We consider the agree- ment to the lower detachment to be quite close for both anticlines and conclude that the cross section of Buxtorf (Figure 7) is area balanced. Using the same cross section of Buxtorf, Mitra and Namson (1989) calculated depth to detachment for these two anticlines based on the excess area at the top of a single unit, the lower Dogger (Unterer Dog. ger), obtaining values equal to about 200 m below the top basement. We believe that this also repre sents good agreement with Buxtorf's cross section, given the method used. Better agreement is obtained using more data. From the same cross sections, Laubscher (1965) calculated a displacement of 1.8 km for the Graitery anticline and 3.9 km for the Grenchenberg anticline. These values are in good accordance with those deduced from the excess- area graphs (1.6 km and 3.5 km, respectively). Tip Top Field Tip Top field is a producing oil field located at the front of the central Wyoming thrust belt. It sits on the Labarge platform just east of the crest of the Moxa arch (Webel, 1977, 1987). This anticline (Fig- ure 9) contains forward thrusts and backthrusts rela- tive to the castward-directed transport of the Wyoming thrust belt. It is called a tepee structure or triangle zone by Webel (1987) because of the pres- ence of forward and back thrusts and its position in front of the leading edge of the thrust belt. Measurements of excess area Were made on an enlargement of Webel’s cross section (Figure 9B), ‘The regional trend for each unit is taken as a straight line between the points where it intersects the sides of the enlarged cross section. The reference elevation is the regional trend of the base of the Triassic series. ‘The excessarea graphs (Figure 10) are construct. ed from the measurements in Table 3. A detachment. fold interpretation is given by the best-fit straight line (Figure 10A), $= 0.51h + 0.56, with a correlation coefficient of 0.961. The slope of the line is the dis. placement, 0.51 km. The line intersects the h axi h= -1.10 km below the reference level at the base of the Triassic, very close to the top of the basement This result implies that the structure loses relief downward and that the top of basement should be the detachment horizon. The geometry of the inter- val in which the structure is inferred to die out is not controlled by wells, whereas the structural relief for all the points on the excess-area curve except for 1 (top Triassic) are controlled by two or more wells. The implied detachment at the top of the base- ment beneath Tip Top field has not been shown in previous interpretations but could be consistent with these interpretations. Blackstone (1979) inter- preted the Tip Top thrust to continue downward to a detachment at the top of the basement but to the west of the anticline, The structural relief below the Tip Top thrust shown by Blackstone (1979, his sec- tions CC’ and DD’) has the same configuration as in Figure 9 and could be explained by a continuation of this interpreted basal detachment to the east, below Tip Top field. ‘An alternative interpretation of Tip Top field is, that it is a fault-bend fold with an upper flat. In this interpretation, the excess area curve consists of two straight-line segments, the lower of which is steeper and gives the basal detachment, as in the example of Figure 6. After a series of trials, we found that the best fitting, internally consistent result of this type igure 10B) indicates the lower detachment to be at the top of the Mississippian (MD) and the upper detachment to be in the Beckwith/Gannett (Jb) interval. The equation for the lower line segment is $= 0.87h + 0.25, with a correlation coefficient of 0.967. The equation for the upper line segment is $= 0.42h + 0.76, with a correlation coefficient of 0.926. The quality of fit to the data is thus slightly better for the lower segment and worse for the ‘upper segment as compared to the single straight line. Cross sections by Kraig et al. (1988, their sec-1298 Depth to Detachment GRAITERY Table 3. Tip Top Field. NCESS AREA [KM?] E “ DEPTH (KM) GRENCHENBERG Lote Docer EXCESS AREA [KM?1 reference level = ton basement @) DEPTH [KM] Figure 8—Excess-area diagrams for Jura anticlines. (A) Graitery anticline, a detachment fold. (B) Grenchenberg anticline, the lower part of a fault-bend fold. This fold has an upper flat at the top of the Sequan (Figure 7) but all excess-area measurements are from below that strati- graphic level. tions CC’ and DD’) show the Tip Top thrust flatte ing into a bedding-parallel detachment in Tria ic units but do not indicate an upper flat. No one has suggested a detachment at the top of the Mississippi- an in this area, and so we fit a lower line segment constrained to go through a detachment inferred at the base of the Triassic, obtaining the relationship, $= 1.18h + 0.0, with a correlation coefficient of 0.840 Gashed line on Figure 10B). This result is a slightly worse fit to the data but is stratigraphically more rea- sonable. Peter Verrall (personal communication, 1992) suggested a fault-bend fold interpretation of the structure (Figure 11) having a lower detachment just below the base of the Triassic and an upper detachment near the base of the Beckwith/Gannett, b). According to the equations above, the displace- ment on the lower detachment at the base of the Tri- assic would be 1.18 km, the upper flat would be 1 km above the base Triassic (equal to the base of Jb), and the displacement on the upper flat would be Number Level top of Kba top of Kf top of KI top of Jb top of te top of Jn top of He muade. 0.76 km, These values are all in close agreement with the cross section (Figure 11). The only change in the interpretation of the well data from the original cross section (Figure 9A) is the deletion of the upper part of the unnamed fault below the Tip Top thrust as interpreted in the gas well that is second from the east. An axial surface is at this position instead. The excess-area diagram indicates that the unnamed deeper thrust, not the Tip Top thrust, should be the basal thrust for the anticline. This example illustrates the use of the excess.area graph in cross section design and the interpretation of structural style. The mathematical best fit to the data from above the top of the Triassic (unit 1) is a detachment anticline with structural relief systemati- cally decreasing to zero at the top of the basement (a slight modification of the original interpretation of Figure 9). This interpretation implies structural clo- sure and hence trapping potential down to close to the top of the basement. The data distribution on the excess arca graph (Figure 10A) suggests the possibil- ity that the structure is a fault-bend fold (Figure 10B). A structurally and stratigraphically reasonable interpretation (Figure 11) requires little change in the section where it is controlled by the wells. The fault-bend fold interpretation (Figure 11) has no clo- sure and no structural trapping potential below the basal thrust. However, this interpretation suggests the possibility of another structure to the east of Tip Top field with its basal detachment at the base of the Beckwith/Gannet interval. DISCUSSION The excess-area graph is a useful tool in the design of balanced cross sections. Area-depth points that fail to group into line segments on the graph indicate that the interpreted structure is wrong or that units have been miscorrelated. Points that fall on a straight line, a segmented straight line, or on a smooth curve indicate an area-balanced cross sec- tion and its general structural style: detachment foldw ee oo 8 (A) , reference level T (B) Figure 9—Tip Top field, Epard and Groshong 1299 eee SA Wasatch = Fort Union Mesaverde Baxter Hilliard Frontier Aspen and Bear River Beckwith-Gannett Twin Creek Nugget Triassic Permian and Pennsylvanian Mississippian and Devonian Ordovician to Cambrian Paleozoic Precambrian crystalline basement Ghaded) vyoming. (A) Cross section from Webel (1977, 1987), published with permission. No verti- cal exaggeration. Wavy lines are unconformities, dashed lines are boundaries within the Kba. (B) Enlargement of (A) in the area of Tip Top field. Horizons for which excess area was measured are numbered. Depth measurements were made from the reference level; the predicted detachment is from the excess area diagram of Figure 10A. or fault-bend fold, The intersection of straight line segments indicates the position(s) of upper flats within the structure and a curved line may indicate additional layer-parallel shear (see Appendix). Alter- native interpretations of a structure may be suggest- ed (as with Tip Top field) and can be tested against the locations of regional detachment horizons (if known). Fault-bend folds that are measured only1300 Depth to Detachment. z : 3 E 2 i 2 4 B a 8 a 7 tL. 0 2 4 top pe (A) DEPTH [KM] z° < g & E n 1 e B a 3 g ° t ° 4 top mb: @B) DEPTH [KM] Figure 10—Excess-area diagrams for Tip Top field. (A) Straight-line, detachment anticline interpretation. (B) Fault-bend fold interpretation. Solid lines: best mathe- matical fit to data; lower detachment is at the top MD and upper flat is in the Jb. Dashed line: best stratigraph- ic fit to data; lower detachment is at the base of the Tri- assic and the upper detachment is unchanged. Refer to Figure 9 for explanation of symbols. above the upper flat will produce gently dipping straight lines on the excess-area diagram, Such a line will project to a detachment that is far too deep to be compatible with the regional basal detachment This result can be interpreted to indicate that the structure is a fault-bend fold and not a detachment anticline, even if the deep structure is unknown. Use of the excessarea graph to indicate structural style and depth to detachment is independent of ver- x reference level I MD Figure 11—Alternative interpretation of Tip Top field, slightly modified from P. Verrall (1992, personal com: yn). The lower detachment is at the base of the ‘Triassic and the upper flat is at the base of the Jb. Refer to Figure 9 for explanation of symbols. tical exaggeration. The line must always go through the point of zero excess area at the detachment hori- zon. A break in slope indicating an upper flat will also occur at the appropriate relative position. This allows the method to be used on seismic time sections as Jong as the velocity gradients are not too great. Verti- cal exaggeration changes the slope of the excess-area curve, and thus the displacement, which is the slope of the curve, is affected. True displacement can only be determined from unexaggerated cross sections. ‘The method applies to any area-balanced fold in cross section, regardless of whether the bed lengths and bed thicknesses are constant. When applied to the theoretical constant-bed-length models of fault- propagation and fault-bend folds, the excess-area graphs indicate the correct geometry and displace- ments for the structures, The Jura cross section including the Graitery and Grenchenberg anticlines was interpreted by Mitra and Namson (1989) to require penetrative strain that changed bed thickness €s, yet the method indicates almost exactly the cor- rect depth to detachment (Figure 8). The geometry of the Tip Top fold Figures 9A, 11) does not precisely fit any constant-bed-length fold model. The internal com- plexity is greater than that of a single fault-bend or fault-propagation fold, yet the excess-area method can be applied to the structure as a whole. ‘The excess area on the graph is directly related to structural closure and can be used to predict changes in closure with depth. The excess area is equal toEXCESS AREA ) Figure 12—The effect of additional simple shear on the excess-area diagram. (A) Cross section, (B) Excess-area diagram. The added simple shear, « = 20°, produces a slight upwardly concave curvature to the line. Scale units are arbitrary. the closure if the regional dip is zero. If the regional is tilted, then the closure is the fraction of the excess area above a horizontal line through the spill point. The change of closure with depth depends on the structural style. If Tip Top field, for example, is a detachment fold, then closure continues with a pre- dictable linear decrease to the top of the basement. If the field is a fault-bend fold, then the closure is sharply reduced below the upper flat and disappears below the lower detachment. The structural poten- tial of deep wells on an anticline can thus be estab- lished from the style and curve shape as seen on an excess.area diagram, CONCLUSIONS Use of the excess.area diagram makes it possible to test a cross section for internal consistency, deter- mine whether an anticline is a detachment fold or fault-bend fold, determine the depth to the basal detachment and the location of any upper flats, Epard and Groshong 1301 determine the displacements on the lower detach: ment and the upper flats, predict the relationship of excess area to depth, and use this relationship to predict structural closure at depth. This simple method works on theoretical models and natural examples, and has a major advantage over previous interpretations; it is independent of length measurements and therefore insensitive to bed-length changes. APPENDIX In the examples in the text, the displacement producing the anti: line is constant, a boundary condition for which an originally vert cal pin line remains vertical. Layer parallel simple shear in the thrust sheet outside the anticline will cause the pin ine to rotate or curve (Geiser, 1988b; Mitra and Namson, 1989). The effect on the area bal ance of a structure can be recognized on the excess-area curve Here, we examine a linear shear profile (Figure 12) as an example, The total displacement is a combination of the constant com: ponent, D, and the added simple-shear component, D, (Figure 12A). The excess area is the sum of the uniform component and the added component, $, s=pnes, ® Assuming linear simple shear, $= 20. © where Dyehtana a0 Replacing D, in equation 9 by equation 10, and substituting into equation 8, S*Dh+Q/2)hean a. ay This is a quadratic equation in h of a curve through the origin, ‘The slope of the curve isthe first derivative: S=D+huna, az ‘The curvature is the second derivative: tan a, aay ‘The curvature isa constant that depends on the shear angle. Ifthe shear is low, the value of tan ais small, and the curvature is not very great and therefore can easily go undetected in natural exam: ples. Figure 12B gives an illustration of this property. Ifthe shear is small relative to the total displacement, the error made in ignor {ng it will be small also. ‘The linear, homogeneous simple shear proposed in this discus sion isthe simplest case, It is possible to include a nonlinear or het ‘erogeneous simple shear. This would add some complexities to the calculation but does not change the concept. Similar calculations ‘cam also be done to add layer parallel shear to a faultbend fold. In ‘each case the excessarea line will be curved rather than straight, thereby indicating the presence of additional simple sheat REFERENCES CITED Bally, A. W.,P. L. Gordy, and G. A. Stewart, 1966, Structure, seismic data, and orogenic evolution of southern Canadian Rocky Moun tains: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v.14, p. 337-3811302 Depth to Detachment Blackstone, D. L. Jr. 1979, Geometry of the Prospect-Darby and LaBarge faults 2 their junction with the LaBarge platform, Lin coln and Sublette counties, Wyoming: Geological Survey of ‘Wyoming Report of Investigations 18, 34 p. Bucher, W. H., 1933, Deformation of the Earth's crust: Princeton, ‘New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 518 p. Bustorf, A., 1916, Prognosen und Befunde beim Hauensteinbasis und Grenchenbergtunnel, und die Bedeutung der letztren fir die Geologie des Juragebirges: Verhandlungen der Natur- forschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, v. 27, p. 184-254, ‘Chamberlin, RT, 1910, The Appalachian folds of central Penn. ‘sylvania: Jounal of Geology, ¥. 18, p. 228-251. Dahistrom, C.D. A., 1969a, Balanced cross sections: Canadian Jotural of Earth Sciences, v. 6, p. 743-757. Dahlstrom, C. D. A. 1969, The upper detachment in concentric folding: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, ¥. 17, p. 326-346. Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1990, Geometric constraints derived from the law of conservation of volume and applied to evolutionary mod- cls for detachment folding: AAPG Bulletin, v.74, p. 336-344 Geiser, P. A., 1988a, Mechanisms of thrust propagation: some ‘examples and implications for the analysis of overthrust ter- runes: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 10, p. 829-845. Geiser, P. A., 1988b, The role of kinematics in the construction ‘and analysis of geological cross section in deformed terranes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 222, p. 47-76. Gwinn, V-E., 1964, Thinskinned tectonics in the Plateau and north. ‘western Valley and Ridge provinces of the central Appalachians Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.75, p. 863-900. Heim, A, 1919, Geologie der Schweiz: Leipzig, Germany, C. H. Tanchinitz, “04 p, Herman, G. C., 1984, A structural analysis of a portion of the Val- ley and Ridge province of Pennsylvania: MS. thesis, University fof Connecticut, Stoors, Connecticut, 106 p. Hossack, J. R., 1979, The use of balanced cross-sections in the cal ‘culation of orogenic contraction: a review: Geological Society of London, ¥. 136, p. 705-711 Jamison, W. R., 1987, Geometric analysis of fold development in ‘overthrust terranes: Journal of Structural Geology, ¥. 9, 207-219. Jones, P. B., 1987, Quantitative geometry of thrust and fold belt structures: AAPG Methods in Exploration Series 6, 26 p. Kraig, D. H., D. V, Wiltschko, and J. H. Spang, 1988, The interac- tion of the Moxa arch (La Barge platform) with the Cordileran thrust belt, south of Snider basin, southwestern Wyoming: Geological Society of America Memoir 171, p. 395-410. Laubscher, H. P., 1965, Fin kinematisches Modell der Jurafaltung: Eclogae Geologicae Helvetia, v, 58, p. 231-318, MeClay, K. R., 1992, Glossary of thrust tectonies terms, in K. R, MeClay. ed., Thrust tectonics, London, Chapman & Hall, p.i9- Mitra, $.. nd J. Namson, 1989, Equalarea balancing: American Journal of Science, v. 289, p. 563-599. Rich, J. L, 1934, Mechanics of low-angle overthrust faulting as illustrated by Cumberland thrust block, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee: AAPG Bulletin, v. 18, p. 1584-1596, ‘Suppe, J.. 1983, Geometry and kinematics of fault bend folding: "American Journal of Science, ¥. 283, p. 684-721 Suppe, J.. 1985, Principles of structural geology: Englewood (Cifls, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, $37 p. Webel, §., 1977, Some new perspectives on the old Nugget oil fields of the LaBarge platform: Twenty-Ninth Annual Field Con: ference-1977 Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, p.665-671. Webel, S., 1987, Significance of backthrusting in the Rocky Moun: tain thrust belt: Thirty-Eighth Annual Field Conference-19 ‘Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, p. 37-53, Williams, G. D., 1984, The calculation of horizontal thrust trans ort using excess area im cross-sections: Tectonophysics, ¥. 104, p. 177-182. Willis, B., 1893, The mechanics of Appalachian structure: U.S Geological Survey 13th Annual Report, part Il, p. 211-281 ‘Wiltschko, D. V., and W. M. Chapple, 1977, Flow of weak rocks. in Appalachian Plateau folds: AAPG Bulletin, v. 61, p. 65 ‘Woodward, N.B.,S. E. Boyer, and J. Suppe, 1989, Balanced geo: logical cross-sections: an essential technique in geological research and exploration: American Geophysical Union Short Course in Geology, v. 6, 132 p, ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jean-Luc Epard Jean-Luc Epard received his Di pléme de Géologue in 1982 and his Doctor of Science in 1990 from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, where he worked on the tectonics of the Helvetics of western Switzer- land and France. During 1991, he ‘was a postdoctoral research associ- ate at the University of Alabama, ‘working on geometric modeling. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Lau: sanne. His interests include alpine geology and modeling. of alpine structures. Richard H. Groshong Rick Groshong's research inter: ests are in quantitative drawing, bal ancing and restoring of maps and cross sections, rock deformation, and comparative structural analysis After his Ph.D. from Brown Universi ty, he taught at Syracuse University, and then joined the structure group at the Cities Service Oil Company Research Laboratory. Now, he is a professor at the University of Alabama and a parttime teacher for Oil and Gas Consultants International.